| Ref ID | 1022 |
| First Author | L. Ho |
| Journal | AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE |
| Year Of Publishing | 2024 |
| URL | https://www-sciencedirect-com.sheffield.idm.oclc.org/science/article/pii/S0735675723006769?via%3Dihub |
| Keywords |
• General medical • Low methodological quality |
| Problem(s) |
• No registered or published protocol • Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality • Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed • Funding or sponsor of systematic review not reported • Lack of prespecification in eligibility criteria • Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided • Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Hong Kong |
| Checklists |
• AMSTAR 2 |
| Aim | To (i) outline the bibliographical features of an up-to-date sample of Systematic Reviews (SRs) indexed on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database and published between 2018 and 2023 on sepsis treatments, (ii) assess the methodological rigour of these SRs using AMSTAR 2, and (iii) investigate the relationship between methodological quality and bibliographical characteristics. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | From 102 Systematic Reviews (SRs) indexed on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database and published between 2018 and 2023 on sepsis treatments. Of the 102 SRs on sepsis treatments included, 62 (60.8%) SRs did not report their funding location or the presence of funding. Among the 102 SRs evaluated using AMSTAR 2, only two (2.0%) were judged to have high overall methodological quality, 4 (3.9%) were of moderate quality, and 7 (6.9%) were of low quality. Most (n = 89; 87.3%) had critically low quality. The items that were least well met were: 1) 44 (43.1) did not report the availability of a protocol; 2) 86 (84.3%) did not explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review; 3) 80 (78.4%) did not provide a list of excluded studies with reasons; 4) 96 (94.1%) did not report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review; 4) 72 (70.6%) did not assess the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 102 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 205 |